This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/23/2019 at 08:16:11 (UTC).

MATT RHOADES ET AL VS MARCO FONSECA

Case Summary

On 05/12/2016 MATT RHOADES filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against MARCO FONSECA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0310

  • Filing Date:

    05/12/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MOORE JOSEPH

RHOADES MATT

JORGENSEN PALLE

LOVATTO JAVIER

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

FONSECA MARCO

LUX LOUNGE EFR

MIGUEL PEREZ

PEREZ MIGUEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SPRETER LAW FIRM APC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LANGER SIMON H. ESQ.

NEAL-LOPEZ TRACY ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

4/16/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Brief

5/3/2019: Brief

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME FOR ALL HOURS WORKED; ETC

5/12/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME FOR ALL HOURS WORKED; ETC

Minute Order

8/31/2016: Minute Order

Unknown

10/25/2016: Unknown

Unknown

10/25/2016: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/25/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

2/23/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

4/27/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/19/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF GEOFF J. SPRETER ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/30/2017: DECLARATION OF GEOFF J. SPRETER ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Service

5/30/2017: Proof of Service

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

6/15/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

10/16/2017: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

10/23/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

PLAINTIFFS' P&A'S ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

10/23/2017: PLAINTIFFS' P&A'S ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Proof of Service

10/23/2017: Proof of Service

DEFENDANTS EVERLASTING ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA LUX LOUNGE EFR AND MARCO FONSECA'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/27/2017: DEFENDANTS EVERLASTING ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA LUX LOUNGE EFR AND MARCO FONSECA'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

75 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • at 09:02 AM in Department 61; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Brief (PLAINTIFFS? POCKET BRIEF RE SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE); Filed by Matt Rhoades (Plaintiff); Joseph Moore (Plaintiff); Palle Jorgensen (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by Matt Rhoades (Plaintiff); Joseph Moore (Plaintiff); Palle Jorgensen (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Joseph Moore (Plaintiff); Javier Lovatto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Declaration (of Geoff Spreter ISO of Final Approval); Filed by Joseph Moore (Plaintiff); Javier Lovatto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (ISO Final Approval); Filed by Joseph Moore (Plaintiff); Javier Lovatto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
163 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-06-22 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME FOR ALL HOURS WORKED; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Matt Rhoades (Plaintiff); Joseph Moore (Plaintiff); Palle Jorgensen (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC620310    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 61

  1. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Code Civ. Proc. section 664.6 states that:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

“Section 664.6 permits the trial court judge to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit. [Citation.] It is for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement. [Citation.] In making that determination, ‘the trial court acts as the trier of fact, determining whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. [Citation.] Trial judges may consider oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone. [Citation.] When the same judge hears the settlement and the motion to enter judgment on the settlement, he or she may consult his [or her] memory. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1359–1360.)

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has not complied with the payment plan set forth in the settlement agreement, and they seek an entry of judgment against them in the amount of $15,687.02. (Motion at p. 1.)

Defendants do not contest that the payment obligation is outstanding, but argue that (1) this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, and (2) he is unable to make the payment because of the ongoing pandemic. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.)

This court possesses jurisdiction under section 664.6. Per the statute, courts may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement “[i]f requested by the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) “[T]he request for retention of jurisdiction must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” (Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 966 [225 Cal.Rptr.3d 845, 849.) The parties made such a request here in the terms of their settlement agreement, which they submitted for court approval prior to dismissal:

Continuing Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of this Settlement Agreement, as well as any and all matters arising out of, or relating to, the interpretation or implementation of the Final Approval Order and/or this Settlement Agreement. In the event of any material breach of this Settlement Agreement, the non -breaching Party may seek any and all causes of actions and/or remedies set forth in the Lawsuit plus breach of contract of this Settlement Agreement.

(See 8/9/2018 Notice of Lodgment, Exh. 2.) This writing was executed by the parties. (Ibid.) Pursuant to the agreement, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement in the very order making the dismissal:

Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, this Court hereby retains and reserves continuing jurisdiction over (1) implementation of this settlement; (2) all parties hereto for the purposes of enforcing and administering the Stipulation and exhibits thereto.

(7/15/2020 Order.) Defendants contends that the parties merely agreed to grant this court jurisdiction to “implement” the settlement agreement, but not to “enforce” it. (Opposition at p. 4.) Yet a common and reasonable understanding of the term “implement” in this context is “to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures” — i.e. to enforce. (“Implement.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implement. Accessed 5 Jan. 2021.) Thus this court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement under section 664.6.

Defendants further contend that the final payment must be excused because of the ongoing pandemic. They contend that they were unable to make the final payment in January 2020 as Fonseca “fell ill for a period of time and also due to financial hardship that the business was suffering.” (Fonseca Decl. ¶ 5.) Fonseca also testifies that he has had to close Everlasting, a furniture rental company for large events, per the governor’s COVID-19 orders. (Fonseca Decl. ¶ 6.)

The governor’s order and ensuing financial hardship are not a sufficient basis to excuse Defendants’ payment obligations. As plaintiffs point out in reply, a party’s financial inability to make an otherwise lawful payment obligation is not a grounds for excusing that obligation. “Impossibility of performing a promise that is not due to the nature of the performance, but wholly to the inability of the individual promisor, neither prevents the formation of a contract nor discharges a duty created by a contract.” (El Rio Oils, Canada, Limited v. Pacific Coast Asphalt Co. (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 186, 197.) Courts have rejected arguments like Defendants’ before. For example, liquor stores and saloons are not excused from their leases by alcohol-prohibition laws, unless the lease is solely for the transaction of a prohibited liquor business. (See Grace v. Croninger (1936) 12 Cal.App.2d 603, 606.) Here, because Defendants’ payment obligation in the contract is indifferent to the means by which Defendants accrue the funds to pay it, a shuttering of Defendants’ business by government order is not sufficient to excuse the obligation.

The motion to enforce settlement and enter judgment is therefore GRANTED.